Re: [Gdbheads] A small patch case study, -file-list-exec-source-files

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>]

Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes:

> > I was there.  I disagree.  It absolutely was a factor.  It was the
> > elephant in the middle of the room.  We at Cygnus were pointing it out
> > loudly.  Richard Kenner and Richard Stallman were ignoring it.
> 
> Well it was an imaginary elephant. Yes, Richard Kenner was very
> particular about what patches he admitted. This has nothing whatever
> to do with Ada. You are just guessing that this was somehow related,
> it was not.

I disagree.

Richard Kenner took specific actions which had every appearance of
conflict between the demands of being gcc maintainer and the demands
of being an employee of Ada Core Technologies.  You say that these
actions had nothing to do with Ada.  My response is that it sure
looked like they had everything to do with Ada.  I can't read
anybody's mind.  Perhaps you are right.  It just seems, well,
unlikely.  I think I personally always been able to clearly state the
ways in which my employer influences my actions, and the ways in which
they do not, and to acknowledge the appearance of conflict and relate
that to the extent of actual conflict.  Richard Kenner did not make
those kinds of statements.

I'll add that I'm now sorry that I brought up this ancient history.
It can't lead to anything good.

I apologize.  I'll try to stop talking about it.

I'll also add that being a GNU maintainer is an inherently political
position.  Technical skill is a big part of it, but it is not the only
part.  People with no political skills are risky choices as GNU
maintainers.

Ian